MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Matters Arising (The History of Britain Revealed)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 227, 228, 229 ... 239, 240, 241  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I'm not the top expert in this area, but I teach History of the English Language at the university level

Doesn't inspire confidence in university-level teaching then. Oh sorry, I took him at his word. Still, doesn't sound like he's actually read Harper... just has 'a strong sense'. Of danger perhaps.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I was contemplating a new chronology dated from the publication of THOBR (the invention of scientific history) but my spin doctor wouldn't allow it.

Sorry.... but I need the votes.

Maybe, when we win our second term.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Jk180 knows his onions when it comes to imprints

the publisher is not an academic press

It is true an academic press carries a degree of authorisation.that virtually amounts to peer review but a mainstream publisher (as Icon, the publisher of THOBR is) also carries weight. How much? Well, since an academic press is forbidden from publishing non-orthodox material, it follows that this is the highest degree of authorisation available to any non-orthodox theory. Which Jk180 fully understands my book is. In other words he should be commending THOBR on publishing grounds, not being sniffy about it.. Jk180 is 180 degrees wrong with his next piece of lofty disdain

and the few reviews at amazon.com ...

THOBR has got about thirty-five Amazon reviews which, far from being 'few', is an astounding number for any book, much less an obscure fruitcakey one. I have noticed this quite a lot -- academics are quite unaware of the 'real world' of books. This is because almost no academic ever writes a book that gets any attention whatsoever. They are not really in the book business at all. Doesn't stop them knowing all about it! Ah, but what kind of reviews ....
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

..reviews at amazon.com are very mixed

'Mixed reviews' is a technical term. When applied to a well-known author or a well-trodden field it is code for 'pretty awful'. A musical that gets mixed reviews won't last the week. But when the label is applied to an unknown author peddling an unknown theory it is absolute manna. In our world, 'mixed' is code for 'pretty damned good'.

Mixed reviews are essential for the business we are in. Bad reviews means that the book has been noticed and people do not read, and they certainly do not review, ordinary bad obscure books. How many readers/reviewers do you suppose "My Eighteen Months In The Yukon" got? People might -- and they do - read/review non-ordinary bad obscure books. Even so, the good reviews are more important since, as I often stress to you all, it only requires one sane non-related person to agree with a moderately complex theory to make it a runner. You might think this a low threshold. You should try it sometime. There are a million crackpot-theorists out there with not one supporter. Some of them because they are bad communicators, some of them because they prefer it that way, most of them because they really are crackpots.

But is 'mixed' really good? 'Look here, Mick, we all know how easily hurt you are; why not admit it, you'd like wall-to-wall praise really, wouldn't you?" Yes, probably I would as a writer, as a human being, but AE-ists know that blanket good reviews of a moderately complex theory must be a bad thing. Unanimity can only arise in the presence of an orthodoxy. Universal raves are, I suppose, achievable by David Attenborough, but if one of my books ever achieved it, I would have to go into a darkened room, with a bottle of whiskey, a loaded revolver and shoot Hatty.

Next I am introduced to an unfamiliar genre.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

As a sidenote. Both me and The History of Britain Revealed seems to have disappeared from the main Wiki site - the stuff you're reading comes from the Talk section or somesuch (I can't even find that again!). I used to feature occasionally as a fringe theorist in various places -- even cited a couple of times (oh, the pride) but no more.

I doubt that this is either serious or deliberate. Just a bot or an editorial weeder reclassifying me from 'barely mentionable' to 'not worth mentioning'. I'd much prefer to be an unperson but no such luck. More on this though in my next wikipost.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ah, I may have mis-stated. A very ancient foe of mine -- he'll feature in my next wikipost -- has been appointed a Wiki editor. He may indeed have deleted all mentions of me. I may really be an unperson after all. No, please, no cheering, nothing of my doing.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

A gentleman named Johnbod weighs in judgementally

Totally WP:FRINGE, and should not be mentioned

I discovered that WP:FRINGE is an official Wikipedia label and is applied by its editors (I think) to stuff like mine. There are rules about whether such material should or should not be 'mentioned' but Wikipedia doesn't quite spell out what they are. This is, when you think about it, perfectly proper because that is the definition of 'fringe' -- nobody can quite tell whether you are in or you are out. At this point an old sparring partner of mine, Doug Weller, decides to contribute his twopennyworth

An anonymous author (that's not his real name) who is also anti-evolution and a self-published book? No

Several oddities here. Doug and I have corresponded for years and he knows quite well it's my real name. He also knows I am not anti-evolution. He probably knows that THOBR is no longer self-published. This degree of animus, almost spite, is not normal, though not abnormal either, in the wilder shores of internet controversy and Wikitalk, while official, clearly counts as a wilder shore. We have pretty firm rules here about amity but people often think that being nasty is the road to wisdom. Au contraire, my little ones, it is only the road to happiness. Johnbod stands shoulder to shoulder with Doug

He's pro- book advances; I'm not sure more than that can be said with certainty!

I'd certainly be the first self-published author who ever got a book advance. It's a widespread assumption among the general public that fruitcakes are in it for the money. Why else would they spout their rubbish, it obviously can't be because they actually believe it.

The irony here is twofold. Firstly, fruitcakes actually have to spend money to get a hearing. I'm a relatively successful fruitcake and I'm still many thousands of pounds behind the eight-ball. I don't specially mind, it's my life and you have to pay for your pleasures. But secondly, and this really ought to be known to Johnbod, nobody makes money from writing books. A recent statistic was that there were six people in Britain who made a living from their books. A fair few others make a living from writing but that's a different matter, and doesn't apply either to me or to my fellow-fruitcakes. Maybe some on the alternative lecture circuit but even that's probably just my professional jealousy showing through.

At this point the discussion ends with a long, rather good, but too discursive contribution from Greenguage 121 which I will fillet and analyse in my next and last post.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Another interesting titbit. Googling Richardson McPhillips -- I always try to contact people who appear in our august columns -- there were 28,000 Google hits -- he's quite an active gent. But what was right up there at number seven? Why, this very thread on this very website. Which means

1. The bots are swarming all over us. The AEL doesn't usually get much notice on search engines but to register us so quickly means we must now bestride the world like a mini-colossus. We must all be more careful with our words from now on.

2. There's no need to tell Mr McPhillips. If I'm any judge he will have his Googlemeter set on "Tell me of new entries every hour". Only the most extreme narcissist goes for anything below my own 'every two hours'.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Greenguage 121 sets out his position

I must assert that I agree with the implications of this header "no alternate theories?". The whole of the page has been presented almost as "received wisdom" on the basis of the "fifth century hypothesis" without any consideration whatsoever of the broad and contentious nature of this area of research.

Now I thought I was a bit of an expert on all this, the world authority to be honest, but I've never heard of the 'fifth century hypothesis'. Anyone got a clue?

This area is a very controversial area with many reputable university scholars (who are far better placed intellectually than I in this area) debating, and contributing peer-reviewed articles to, the origins of the English language.

Blimey, Homer has been nodding. Can someone please tell me of a peer-reviewed paper setting this out? An unpeer-reviewed one even. A Wiki piece would do.

Many are now considering the possibility that English has linguistic roots which not only predate the so-called invasions of the fifth century but also the Roman occupation itself.

Well, yes and no. Ever since the genetic stuff has started coming in, showing nothing changed, everybody's been doing a bit of scrambling, but Occam's Razor howls at the idea of 'English roots'. Why not English? I know everyone plays fast and loose in this area but you can't really have Language A and then Language B 'rooted in' Language A but not being an evolved form of Language A. Or if you can, I'd like to hear an example of it.

In my sincere opinion, and with all due respect, the whole page needs completely revising because it reads like an account from an outdated text on the origins of the English people and their language.

Phew! Dougie won't allow that. But it's nice to hear dear old off-off-fringe THOBR might be getting invited in some time in the future. The prospect is too much for the old ticker so I'll finish off later..
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I've never heard of the 'fifth century hypothesis'. Anyone got a clue?

It sounds like the wholesale 'Anglo-Saxonisation' of English since he refers to "received wisdom" in the same sentence.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Greenguage 121 complains there is only
A passing reference to Oppenheimer's work ...

That's the genetic stuff by the way. As AE always says, you only break a paradigm when some outsider wanders in. It should be noted that this is the very first piece of actual 'scientific' evidence that has ever entered into the Origins of (The) English debate. How the historians, the archaeologists and the linguists howl: 'Take it away! Take it away! We were happy just the way we were.'

...but not even a mention of the obvious implications of the historiographical evidence in Caesar's 'Gallic Wars' that Germanic speech communities (and not necessarily of the Western Germanic branch but of a distinct branch) were already established in Britain alongside the Brythonic by the third century BCE.

This is naughtily disingenuous. I know of no such Caesarian philology. Can anyone oblige? I presume he is referring to the 'Belgae' but orthodoxy believes the Belgae are Celtic-speakers so that doesn't advance the matter. THOBR of course regards them as Dutch-speakers, so it might.

Anybody coming to this page for the first time as a rookie or greenhorn, so to speak, would certainly not be greeted by a balanced introduction which invites further interest and inquiry.

I don't think this is really true. Even with THOBR struck out, orthodox/major and orthodox/minor are fairly laid out. But it does raise the question of what Wiki is for. Encyclopaedias are not, after all, meant to encyclopaedically include every lost soul's musings. On the other hand, Wiki is meant to be different so maybe it should. What about a WeirdWiki, that would be a wonder to behold. I'll have a word with Jimmy. A good example of the general problem is provided by Jk180

"English is Not Normal" by John McWhorter, Professor at Columbia University poses the tantalizing concept that English has its roots in "Celtic" languages... It appears to me there should be a mention of alternate theories.

Jonbod squelches any such ambition

I thought the surprising lack of vocabulary of Celtic origin in Old English was always something of a puzzle to scholars! This is still fringe nonsense

And provides a suitable point to close this particular jaunt down the by-ways of Wikipedia. Most enlightening. If our new book gets any sort of traction, I might have to dive into the by-laws of Wikipedia.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Coupla interesting reviews, neither very nice, both interesting. The first is from the Financial Times of some yeasrs ago but I have never been able to get access to it because it required a subscription. I'll break it down as per usual

As a highly readable companion to Stephen Oppenheimer’s The Origins of the British, M.J. Harper’s The History of Britain Revealed

It continues to irritate me that people think I am jumping on his bandwagon, or at any rate running alongside, when I started all this at leasat five years before.

does, as its subtitle suggests, point out a few anomalies that orthodox academia would prefer we politely ignore – not least that the English language probably existed before the Anglo-Saxons got here.

Excuse I, but that's a pretty big deal, isn't it? I mean it shreds the whole basis of 'English' history, doesn't it?

Harper’s law of applied epistemology allows him to slice Occam’s razor through centuries of academic assumption. And very entertaining this is.

Some dude! Some technique!. Turns out not

What Harper – too busy gloating – fails to do, is to trust the reader with references.

Unless there are no references because everything in it is too well-known to require a reference or original to him.so there can't be any..

Not that this matters. Harper’s history is aimed squarely at those who prefer beautiful theories to ugly facts.

Fair enough, can you give us a few examples of these ugly facts?

Shan't.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The next review appeared just a couple of weeks ago on Amazon. It is heartening that THOBR is still making waves fifteen years after it came out.

This is a very odd book.

When I come across an odd book (in the bad sense) I don't waste my time reading it. And I certainly don't go on to Amazon to tell the world I waste my time reading odd books (in the bad sense).

The author suggests that previous histories of the English Language have distorted the evidence and built up a false narrative. In fact I've never read a history which doesn't scrupulously refer to the evidence where it exists

This is weird. I say they have distorted the evidence so he castigates me because other historians have used evidence.

and points out where a narrative has to be tentative because of lack of evidence.

I wonder what a historical narrative that lacks evidence is like. Oh, yes, it's made up by historians. Not even distorted, it can't be there's no evidence, just made up..

Whereas other histories make the most of what evidence there is and try to reconstitute as plausible a narrative as they can where the evidence is thin, the account given in this book substitutes a narrative for which there is no evidence of any kind whatsoever

That is true and is where AE is so valuable.. When there is a lack of evidence, academics either make it up or give it up. AE-ists use other techniques, ones that do not require evidence in the ordinary sense. The one most helpful in THOBR was to use parallel situations for which there is evidence. Academics are always too specialised to avail themselves of this simple and effective method.
More later.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

- indeed, in the face of specific evidence such as the Peterborough Chronicle the author turns distinctly queasy.

That is not my recollection. I thought I seized on the Peterborough Chronicle with considerable glee. But it is true that if the orthodox explanation for the PC is correct then I am blown out of the water. Fortunately it is ludicrous.because it requires Anglo-Saxon to become English in about thirty years! That is in the period between the previous edition of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (1090) and the Peterborough version (1120). My own explanation is that Anglo-Saxon scribes were no longer being trained after the Norman Conquest.

Some other reviews suggest that the book may be of interest in giving an alternative history or in encouraging students to question theories that become accepted in academic mainstream. I would dispute this

At least he acknowledges there are other views than his own that testify to the value of the book. This is both commendable and unusual. Most critics either ignore such people exist or declare them to be fruitcakes.

- of course academic theories must always be rigorously questioned,

It’s always fascinating to me how often this claim is made as if it is self-evident. Everyone here knows perfectly well that academia is structured so that theories are never rigorously questioned. Oh that they were!
to be concluded.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

but the author's thesis that the traditional narrative is an unsupported invention is as much a fiction as his own alternative narrative.

As, I suppose, is this statement.

This book has nothing to teach anyone about the history of English except insofar as its theoretical flimsiness would tend to turn one to trust the traditional tentative narrative.

This is one of the most magnificently circular non-sequiturs I have come across in years. I shall have it transcribed into needlepoint and hung over my bed.

It might however be of interest to an alienist.

An alienist is a (weirdly) old fashioned term for a psychiatrist. My harshest critics have never accused me of actual clinical insanity since they recognise there’s a difference between a fruitcake and a nutcase. But as Frank Muir pointed out, everyone’s a fruit and nutcase.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 227, 228, 229 ... 239, 240, 241  Next

Jump to:  
Page 228 of 241

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group